Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Hutch.1978 • 1 • • RLGOHD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves RESOLUTION NO. /,?. (Series of 1978) WHEREAS, in accordance with Ordinance No. 48, Series of 1977, :'ebruary 1, 1978, was established as a deadline for sub- mission of 1978 applications for residential, :lodging and commercial development within the City of Aspen, and WHEREAS, in response to this ordinance three commercial projects were submitted for a total of 6,639 square feet of • commercial space within the 24,000 square feet of commercial space available in 1978, and WHEREAS, duly noticed public hearings w;re conducted before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission on March 14, 1978, and before the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 18, 1978, to consider the Growth Management applications and evalu- ate and score these applications in conformance with criteria established in Ordinance No. 48, Series of 1977, and - WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission did by resolu- tion evaluate, rank, and score the projects submitted in the • following order: Total Total P0 Average KR: Average W/0 Bonus Bonus W /Bonus 1. Tom 'Thumb • • Building 18.52 13.4 31.92 4.9 36.32 5455 sq.ft. 2. The Hutch 12.42 6.6 19.02 2.18 21.02 576 sq.ft. 3. La Tortue 10.62 6.7 17.32 .56 17.88 608 sq.ft. and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council did consider appeals at their May 8, 1978, meeting and as provided in Section 24- 10.5(e), Ordinance No. 48, Series of 1977, did amend the points awarded 4 to the two protesting applicants as follows: • RECORD OF PROCEE:Dfgw3S 100 Leaves W/O Bonus 1. Tom Thum,', • 2. The dutch 3. La Tortue and, WHEREAS, The Hutch and La Tortue did not achieve either a minimum of 60% of the total available 36 points or 30% of each category'and, therefore, in accordance with Section 24- 10.5(c), are not eligible for development allotment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Aspen City Council hereby allocates commercial development allotment in the amount of 545', square feet to the Tom Thumb Building application in the year 1978 and that this project is authorized to proceed • further with any additional approvals needed by the City of Aspen to secure building permits. AND I3E IT FURTHER RESOLVED that: 1. City Council recognizes the unanticipated discriminatory effect that Ordinance No. 48 has on small projects and small additions and, :pursuant to the recommendations of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission hereby directs the City Attorney and Planning Office to draft a special ordinance that would amend Ordinance No. 48 to delete the requirement that projects must receive 30% of the total points in the category of community commerical services. 2. Council will reconsider the Hutch and La Tortue for development allotments when and if such ordinance is adopted. 3. That the unused 1978 allotment 18,545 square feet and the unused 1977 allotment of 6215 square feet, for a total of 24,760 square feet be carried over. to 1979 for possible distribution at that (or a later) time, unless Ordinance No. 48 is amended before 1979 revising the carry over provisions. It is also noted that, should _^- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM LL c. F. MOIIXft o. R.. l.. CI. The Hutch and La Tortue applications be approved, that the carry -over allotment will be reduced by the equivalent amount. 4. Council hereby directs the Planning Office to propose amendments to Ordinance No. 48 to the Planning and Zoning Commission including alternative 'means of dealing with the discriminatory effect of the ordinance on small projects and more definitive criteria for architectural design, site design, and amenities among o'liers. Adopted this • day of May, 1978. Stacy Standley III Mayor I, KATHRYN S. }TAUTER, duly appointed and acting City Clerk, do certify that the foregoing is a.true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting held , 1978. Kathryn S. Hauter City Clerk v -3- 9. HPC GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Ratings of projects within the commercial one zoning districts shall be assigned points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a totally incompatible design 1 - Indicates a major design flaw which creates a major conflict with historic structures in the historic district or with the urban environment in the other areas outside the historic district 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 - Indicates an acceptable design The following design elements shall be rated accordingly: Massing - (maximum 3 points) considering the massing, type of roof, and overall compatibility with the historic scale represented in the vicinity of the project. Exterior Building Materials - (maximum 3 points) considering the application of historic building materials and their use on all facades of the structure, avoidance of garish, reflective or other disruptive materials. Architectural Detail - (maximum 3 points) considering overall visual impression given by fenestration and the use of building detail near windows, doors, corners, roof lines and at floor level. Color - (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility of colors and the variation in color when necessary to maintain historic scale. Architecture - (maximum 3 points) considering the use of compatible contemporary design as opposed to the imitation of historic architectural features. RATE the above five (5) design elements below. Please comment on the strong and /or elk factors affecting each of your ratings. Project Name: elk atIC Day VY1n,�� \.k Design Eien':era: a) MASSING Rating Comment: Cs "" ` n .tee .. b) EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL Rating 4 2, Comment: Jr L r ..? rr , - :'.care , .mac.. i`_ e, - - -_.— - 2_ c) ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL Rating I Comment:o d) COLOR Rating sZ Comment: 14 , . , _O C v.-r_ - ... t e) ARCHITECTURE Rating Comment: �, t tlr � - r 7a1 =- Co.... TOTAL Rating 1 _ Name of person submitting the above rating ?Jun.rst, • - 3 - • , GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN • RATINGS BY HPC The H.P.C. reviewed the following project and 'rated each of the design and community commercial elements as specified by the Growth Management Ordinance. . - PROJECT: ,•,,..r_ Tht r w , - - -- . REVIEW DATE: MA a r ,y L4 !C1! 2! ' HPC REVIEW v ti? ` / i \'' //) �J� /VJ` iN' �S J e:/// 4S:1 ./@ �., HPC / P // MEMBER I \,0 6 \.O \,0 '-1, \i •Z` \&5 -___12 3. - -- 4. — 2 ? _ -- \ , '.t, o I 2 \ .0 ,'c 1 . 0 L-I, , a 5. VY\0c 1,V. `L 0 'L.0 ', CTS 2.0 6 1 , - 7 4 ti--------71`: ---7------ GROUP RATING , 1, 3 1. j ! 1 1' 2 2 _ PLANTING OLFICE RATING] — `---- i -- -- � �_ —_ — I - - -.I THE COMBINED RATINGS OF THE HPC AVERAGES Co ' 6 • • • 10. PRZ Growth Management Quality of Design Evaluation Form - Projects wit Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial One (C -1) zoning districts shall be assigned points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a totally incompatible design 1 - Indicates a major design flaw 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 - Indicates an acceptable design Rate the following features accordingly: • • a) Architectural design - considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building mater- ials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating 2 Comment: / -eapI b) Site design _ considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiericy of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating Comment: _ A (010 vk c) Energy - considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating Comment: 4crept4 d) Amenities - considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. I CIA Rating G _ Comment: _ fee - -- — — - 4 - e) Visual Impact - considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. II��`` Rating Comment: f J ( (',( '��c U(, • 11. P &Z Growth Management Community Commercial Uses Evaluation Form Projects within the CC and C -1 shall . be assigned points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a project totally lacking in any housing or uses directed to supplying needs of local residents 1 - Indicates a project with its main emphasis on supplying tourist services with little or . no on -site housing 2 - Indicates a project with housing and uses that will be relied on by both the tourist and residential populations • 3 - Indicates a project which is designed almost exclusively to satisfy the needs of the com- munity's residential population with only incidental tourist use and no tourist housing being anticipated. Rate the following features accordingly: • a) Employee Housing - considering the extent to which the project supplies housing for employees generated by the proposed commercial uses. Rating 0 Comment: W I - b) Medical and Other Service Needs - considering the extent to which Yy , a Kr'!7� the project supplies medical, dental and similar professional { office space; as well as banking, appliance supplies and repair, grocery, hardware, drug store, laundry, and similar uses designed and intended to serve the routine trade and service needs of the community. Rating I/8 Comment: - 5 - • 12. NET POINTS HPC AVERAGE RATING INDIVIDUAL P &Z MEMBER RATING I li ( J • NET RATING 13. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. BONUS POINT 1 7 — RE Dv e1ri0 lk.) A1_X:WAki 1 14. TOTAL POINTS NET RATING • /5.4 BONUS RATING 5 TOTAL POINTS a 1 4 NAME OF PERSON ( SUBMITTING THE ABOVE RATING: �� DATE 1 8kti D ATE 1 8 kyr A? -6- • GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN RATINGS BY PE The P &Z reviewed the following project and rated each of the design and community commercial elements as specified by the Growth Management Ordinance. _ PROJECT: • REVIEW DATE: P &Z REVIEW / Ci e 6 w 4) 4Q �, • ti yeti kr N O,1 v LS/ � 2� J O qy q O� � ce, `z' G � J ai ti V e ' `L Q P &Z MEMBER 1. 2. -- 3. 4. 6 6. GROUP RATING PLANNING OFFICE RATING I 1 PLANNING OFFICE TOTAL TOTAL INDIVIDUAL RATINGS _ AVERAT OF ALL PE RATINGS a = • CaLdth Li Dcinn L` Uatirm - Projects J'.l on Form 4s t —ail it thn coucif i!:;i:1 !( 'rciai One (C -1) zoning districts shun iii` assignU(i points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a totally inrempdtible design 1 - Indicates a major design firm • • • 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design • 3 - Indic.rtc an acceptable design - Rale the following features accordi'ngiy: a) Acchitectur<,1 design _ considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building mater- ials) with existing neighboring developments. i Rating 21,5 Coy;. ent: • b) Site design - .considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the'extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased • safety and privacy. Rating 2,3 Comment: • • c) Energy - considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating 2,6 Com,:rent: • d) Amenities - considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. ti Rating Z'S (.OZIn • e) Visual J',i;lac -,< considering the scale and loeoc!on of buildings to maximize public views of surrc•unding scenic areas. n � Rating Ls, Correnent: • • 11. P&Z Growth Manajement Coma,rnity Commercial Uses Evaluation Form Projects within the CC and C -1 shall be assigned points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a project totally lacking in any housing or uses directed to supplying needs • of local residents 1 - Indicates a project with its main emphasis • on supplying tourist services with little or no on -site housing 2 - Indicates a project with housing and uses that will be relied on by both the tourist and residential populations 3 - Indicates a project which is designed almost exclusively to satisfy the needs of the com- munity's residential population with only incidental tourist use and no tourist housing being anticipated. •Rate the following features accordingly: a) Employee Housing - considering the extent to which the project supplies housing for employees generated by the proposed commercial uses. Rating _OD Comment: • b) Kedical and Other Service Needs - considering the extent to which the project supplies medical, dental and similar professional office space; as well as banking, appliance supplies and repair, grocery, hardware, drug store, laundry, and similar uses designed and intended to serve the routine trade and service needs of the COrthnunity. Rating I'D Comment: • • • -5- t - > 12. NET POINTS HPC AVERAGE RATING 6•(. INDIVIDUAL P&Z MEMBER RATING L4, I ' NET RATING 13. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20` of the ahuie net rating) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. BONUS POINT .z 1 14. TOTAL POINTS NET RATING AhWit ©. r I Y BONUS RATING 3 TOTAL POINTS WO -. , 7 • NAME PERSON SUBMIT TING THE ABOVE RATING: elat "AA' ` . ti ti C1 C �u DATE - ( C f g 7c5 C .. .- 1 �. „ t Fit � 7.J y:411) Fhr 71C Qualify of ilC>in I U-7,illut I ^, - C' Form I'rfl _'L:i$ i the Conmercial TCore ((c) and (IL,crcial u,,:, ( -1) 701Ag districts shall be assigned points ac urding to the fol1(p:ainy formula: 0 - Indicates a totally incompatible design 1 - Indicates a major design flaw • 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design • 3 - Indicates an acceptable design _ Rate the following features accordingly: a) Architectural design - considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building mater- ials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating 2 • Coarent: b) Site design - considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating Comaien t : c) Energy - considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating • Comment: • d) Amenities - considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. Rating Comment.: • - q .. -- e) Visual lmpac c considcrinq the scale end lod i on of buildings to maximize public views of surroundinci scenic ,areas. Rating 2 Comment: • 11. P&Z Growth Management Community Commercial 'Uses Evaluation Form Projects within the CC and C -1 shall be assigned paints according to the following formula: • 0 - Indicates a project totally lacking 'in any • housing or uses directed to supplying needs of local residents 1 - Indicates a project with its main emphasis on supplying tourist services with little or no on -site housi ng . . 2 - Indicates a project with housing and uses that will be relied on by both the tourist and residential populations 3 - Indicates a project which is designed almost exclusively to satisfy the needs of the com- munity's residential population with only incidental tourist use and no tourist housing being anticipated. . •Rate the following features accordingly: a) Employee Housing - considering the extent to which the project supplies housing for employees generated by the proposed commercial uses. Rating Comment: • • b) Medical and Other Service Needs - considering the extant to which the project supplies medical, dental and similar professional office space; as well as banking, appliance supplies and repair, grocery, hardware, drug store, laundry, and similar uses designed and intended to serve the routine trade and service needs of the comm u nity. / Rating / • Comment: r - es- 12. NET POINTS HPC AVERAGE RATING (o -� INDIVIDUAL P &Z MERGER RATING //. NET RATING /7. 6 13. BONUS POINTS (not to exce2d 209 of the above net rating) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. BONUS POINT L 14. TOTAL POINTS NET RATING /7 6 - BONUS RATING Y' TOTAL POINTS /7° NAME OF PERSON SU MIT1ING THE ABOVE RATING: DATEo0O • • 9. HPC GROWTH MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM - Ratings of projects within the commercial one zoning districts shall be assigned points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a totally incompatible design 1 - Indicates a major design flaw which creates a major conflict with historic structures in the historic district or with the urban environment in the other areas outside the historic district 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 - Indicates an acceptable design The following design elements shall be rated accordingly: Massing - (maximum 3 points) considering the massing, type of roof, and overall compatibility with the historic scale represented in the vicinity of the project. Exterior Building Materials - (maximum 3 points) considering the application of historic building materials and their use on all facades of the structure, avoidance of garish, reflective or other disruptive materials. Architectural Detail - (maximum 3 points) considering overall visual impression given by fenestration and the use of building detail near windows, doors, corners, roof lines and at floor level. Color - (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility of colors and the variation in color when necessary to maintain historic scale. Architecture - (maximum 3 points) considering the use of compatible contemporary design as opposed to the imitation of historic architectural features. RATE the above five (5) design elements below. Please comment on the strong and /or weak factors affecting each of your ratings. Project Name:t A Date. Design Element: a) MASSING Rating _Z Comment: b) EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL Rating Comment: • • - 2 - R r c) ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL Rating /f<' Comment: d) COLOR Rating • Comment: Ratin i. e) ARCHITECTURE 9 Comment: TOTAL Rating Name of person submitting the above rating { - 3 - -"\ • • GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN RATINGS BY HPC The H.P.C. reviewed the following project and 'rated each of the design and community commercial elements as specified by the Growth Management Ordinance. PROJECT: REVIEW DATE: HPC REVIEW �tiP� <<" Zi* HPC MEMBER 1. 2. 3. 4. 1 ft. — 5. 7. GROUP RATING PLANNING OFFICE RATING — 1 THE COMBINED RATINGS OF THE HPC AVERAGES 10. P &Z Growth Manajement Quality of Design Evaluation Form - Projects witiiin the Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial One (C-1) zoning districts shall be assigned points according to. the following formula: 0 - Indicates a totally incompatible design 1 - Indicates a major design flaw 2 - Indicates an acceptable (hut standard) design 3 - Indicates an acceptable design • Rate the following features accordingly: a) Architectural design - considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building mater- ials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating ,2, 6 Comment: b) Site design _ considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiency of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating $ f Comment: c) Energy - considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficient fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar energy sources. Rating 2) Comment: -- Elm - -; d) Amenities - considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. Rating (% Comment: �• 1 • w e) Visual Impact - considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating 1. n Continent: • 11. Pu7_ Growth Management Community Commercial Uses Evaluation Form Projects within the CC and C -1 shall be assigned points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a project totally lacking in any housing or uses directed to supplying needs of local residents 1 - Indicates a project with its main emphasis on supplying tourist services with little or no on -site housing 2 - Indicates a project with housing and uses that will be relied on by both the tourist and residential populations 3 - Indicates a project which is designed almost • exclusively to satisfy the needs of the com- munity's residential population with only incidental tourist use and no tourist housing being anticipated. Rate the following features accordingly: a) Employee Housing - considering the extent to which the project supplies housing for employees generated by the proposed commercial uses. Rating el / Comment: b) Medical and Other Service Needs - considering the extent to which the project supplies medical, dental and similar professional office space; as well as banking, appliance supplies and repair, grocery, hardware, drug store, laundry, and similar uses designed and intended to serve the routine trade and servicenceds of the community. / Rating _ 4_0 Comment: _ -- _aa.G�4„sL_ - 5 - I 2 . 12. NET POINTS HPC AVERAGE RATING INDIVIDUAL P &Z MEMBER RATING Jd / lf NET RATING, 13. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20% of the above net rating) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. r °�� ` �� BONUS POINT 57,p (iewe -4 F 14. TOTAL POINTS • NET RATING • „2 , Q BONUS RATINGC TOTAL POINTS SiSt 0 NAME OE�PERSON SUBMITTING THE ABOVE RATING: 1 „ DATE / fr - 6 - • .oPPwr. ) i t 9. HPC GROWTH MANAGLMENT EVALUATION FORM - Ratings of pr within the commercial one zoning districts shall be assigned points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a totally incompatible design 1 - Indicates a major design flaw which creates a major conflict with historic structures in the historic district or with the urban environment in the other areas outside the historic district 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 - Indicates an acceptable design The following design elements shall be rated accordingly: Massing - (maximum 3 points) considering the massing, type of roof, and overall compatibility with the historic scale represented in the vicinity of the project. Exterior Building Materials - (maximum 3 points) considering the application of historic building materials and their use on all facades of the structure, avoidance of garish, reflective or other disruptive materials. Architectural Detail - (maximum 3 points) considering overall visual impression given by fenestration and the use of building detail near windows, doors, corners, roof lines and at floor level. Color - (maximum 3 points) considering the compatibility of colors and the variation in color when necessary to maintain historic scale. Architecture - (maximum 3 points) considering the use of compatible contemporary design as opposed to the imitation of historic architectural features. RATE the above five (5) design elements below. Please comment on the strong and /or weak factors affecting each of your ratings. Project Name: 1/ 4 L Date: -- —. Design Eieraent: a) f1ASSING Rating Z Comment: b) EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL Rating S Z Comment: —__ -- �_ - -- - 2 - • c) ARCFIITECTURAL DETAIL Rating Comment: • d) COLOR Rating • Comment: e) ARCHITECTURE Rating Comment: i • TOTAL Rating Name of person submitting the above rating _ _ `_ /Ad { - 3 - • 4i `. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN RATINGS BY HPC ■ The H.P.C. reviewed the following project and 'rated each of the design and community commercial elements as specified by the Growth Management Ordinance. PROJECT: REVIEW DATE: HPC REVIEW tiQ� ,„ / / i S � A �� 0. L / /,1\ SP f P HPC 1 MEMBER i Ell 1. i 2. — -- 3. i 4. 5. _ 6. t7 — f GROUP RATING _ _ -- PLANNING OFFICE RATING I — -- THE COMBINED RATINGS OF THE HPC AVERAGES • 10. P &Z Growth Manajrment Quality of Design Evaluation Form - Projects within the Commercial Core (cCT and Commercial One (C -1) zoning districts shall be assigned points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a totally incompatible design 1 - Indicates a major design flaw 2 - Indicates an acceptable (but standard) design 3 - Indicates an acceptable design Rate the following features accordingly: • a) Architectural design - considering the compatibility of the proposed building (in terms of size, height, location and building mater- ials) with existing neighboring developments. Rating n e, Comment: b) Site design - considering the quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space areas, the extent of undergrounding of utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for efficiericy of circulation (including access for service vehicles) and increased safety and privacy. Rating LC Comment: { c) Energy considering the use of insulation, solar energy devices and efficit,.i. fireplaces to maximize conservation of energy and use of solar en.-g7 sources. Rating 2 0 Comment: d) Amenities - considering the provision of usable open space and pedestrian and bicycle ways. Rating y +0 Comment: r ,. a„s e) Visual Impact - considering the scale and location of buildings to maximize public views of surrounding scenic areas. Rating Air Comment: 11. P&Z Growth Management Community Commercial Uses Evaluation Form Projects within the CC and C -1 shall . be assigned points according to the following formula: 0 - Indicates a project totally lacking in any housing or uses directed to supplying needs of local residents 1 - Indicates a project with its main emphasis • • on supplying tourist services with little or - no on -site housing 2 - Indicates a project with housing and uses that will be relied on by both the tourist and residential populations • 3 - Indicates a project which is designed almost • exclusively to satisfy the needs of the com- munity's residential population with only incidental tourist use and no tourist housing • being anticipated. 'Rate the following features accordingly: a) Employee Housing - considering the extent to which the project supplies housing for employees generated by the proposed commercial uses. • Rating _ ( _ • Comment: • b) Medical and Other Service Heeds - considering the extent to which the project supplies medical, dental and similar professional office space; as well as banking, appliance supplies and repair, grocery, hardware, drug store, laundry, and similar uses designed and intended to serve the routine trade and service needs of the community. Rating 1 Comment: - -- - -- - 5 - 12. NET POINTS UPC AVERAGE RATING A INDIVIDUAL P &Z MEMBER RATING NET RATING 13. BONUS POINTS (not to exceed 20 ( Z of the above net rating) provided the project merits recognition due to its outstanding quality. BONUS POINT /eibev .F,4/ ` }�► 14. TOTAL POINTS NET RATING • BONUS RATING I TOTAL POINTS Q' 7 NAME OF PERSON SUBMITTING THE ABOVE RATING: f� ' 1 C( -1A n1 A . _ DATE. t . • _ l e GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN RATINGS BY P &Z The P&Z reviewed the following project and rated each of the design and community commercial elements as specified by the Growth Management Ordinance. PROJECT: — REVIEW DATE: • • P &Z REVIEW o / ////::// %( � , � o - , e / ` c 7 43 7 cy,„ co P &Z ( MEMBER -- — 1. I 2. —� — 3• - - - - E 4' - - - t 5. 1 GROUP RATING - -� -- - -- PLANNING OFFICE RATING I I I 1 I _L PLANNING OFFICE TOTAL TOTAL INDIVIDUAL RATINGS AVERAT OF ALL P &Z RATINGS // 1- P."1 - ---: /IC/ , - , ,.. , 7 . • • . Thc N!/! u,!:( ,-;...! ', I!! !! !!!;•;! :fli ; ly! r;.!. !! !.. c.!! rif th! • dc:!:,!!!!•!i Hfrt C)::!H;: Ly I ,) . 1 H . ; i V, • • . , . i . . • l'1,0 lilLi : M) te 1/ . - .,, 1 / / , , i ,, .,,/,- , / / / , / / / / // 0 /» 1 / / /// , . • / " A. / • , / i 1 • ( ( I 1 1 !! 1 1 ..--) , ..., i. , 1 .....- 1 r istelPkt 6- z 1 2 -L.- 1 z . —, / /6 3 iiiie t li 4 . -; - .i. ,- si. 7 / , !! . ! e, 1: - ,,,), .4/P Ce... i . I ' ''. lib e 8' i?) i2,5 17, ; - i .. ....- ,, , 1 — i ' I ' 1 (2 / , I .-#4 C' I ..! ( . , .,,.. i A 7, & 1,-;„ (. 1 > (", 1: . ,,/ i, , cc.,) . n I, - 1/4/ 11.,:,,c.• 1 (3;947- 0 i 11 k —, i. — , i 1 , i[ ,i , H i , I . , I --- - , , . , , i ii I 1; C!!!!!!!!!!! :;!!.!!!!!!! I! ! !,• I I ! I! . I .! 11 I 1 111N!),!!!2 Oi 1! I ! !! MP C('!i!!!!!!! e:!!!!!_!,,,,., t;! IL! i!!.! • - -- . . • t . • •